Account Termination Notice and the Surety’s Default under a General Credit Agreement: Objection Periods, Interest Calculation and Mortgage Enforcement

If the account termination notice sent by the bank is not objected to, does the debt become final? Is the period for objection one month or eight days? Does an objection to the notice stop enforcement through realisation of the mortgage? Is the principal debtor’s default enough to put a joint and several surety in default on the same date? How do restructuring, the release of a pledge or the lapse of ten years affect the surety’s liability?

Scope of this review: commercial credit, consumer credit and the capacity of the parties

The framework nature of a general credit agreement

A general credit agreement sets out the basic terms on which a bank makes cash and non-cash credit available to its customer within defined limits. A credit limit stated in the agreement does not prove that the whole limit was in fact drawn down, or that the bank has a claim that has arisen in the same amount. Multiple credit products, different drawdown dates, instalments, interest rates, collections and non-cash risks must each be established from separate records.

When a bank’s claim is examined, the limit in the agreement, the principal actually drawn down, the remaining principal, the accrued interest and the continuing non-cash risk cannot be presented as one and the same item. The total stated in an account termination notice does not, on its own, become an undisputed admission proving the entire claim unless the account movements and payment documents on which it rests are examined. The special evidentiary provisions of İİK Article 68/b remain reserved.

Special protection on maturity in consumer credit

The main subject of this article is the commercial general credit agreement. In consumer credits with a fixed term, by contrast, the right to demand the whole debt under Article 28 of Law No. 6502 is subject to special conditions: the lender must have performed all of its obligations, the consumer must be in default on at least two consecutive instalments, the right of early maturity must have been expressly reserved, and a maturity warning with a period of at least thirty days must have been given. The contractual account termination regime designed for commercial credits cannot be applied to a consumer credit while disregarding these special protections.

In what capacity each person is liable must be determined

The principal credit customer, the joint and several surety, a co-borrower and a third party who has merely granted a mortgage over his or her own immovable property are not in the same position. For each of them the source of the debt, the default, the service of notices and the enforcement route are examined separately. The wording “joint debtor and joint and several surety” in the agreement does not remove the duty to examine whether the real legal relationship is suretyship or an independent assumption of debt.

The legal nature of account termination: the bank’s unilateral record is not enough

When does the power of early maturity arise?

Account termination is the bank, acting under a power derived from statute or contract, moving to wind up the credit account and, if the conditions are met, demanding the whole debt. An unpaid instalment, insufficient security or a breach of a contractual obligation may constitute grounds for early maturity. However, the bank’s closing of the account in its computer system does not create a power of early maturity that is absent from the agreement.

As regards the validity of the termination, the following are examined: which contractual clause is relied on, when the breach occurred, whether the bank complied with any cure period, as of what date the debt became demandable, and to which addressee the notification was directed.

The termination date, the maturity date and the default date are different

Under TBK Article 117, the debtor of a matured debt is, as a rule, put in default by the creditor’s demand notice (ihtar); the fixing of a performance date and other statutory exceptions are reserved. The date on which the account was terminated may coincide with the date on which the claim matured under the contractual or statutory conditions; however, the default dates of the principal debtor and of the surety are not necessarily the same.

A default arising from instalments that matured earlier and remain unpaid may also be preserved separately. The fact that the bank gives a new payment period in its account termination notice does not automatically eliminate every instalment default that has previously arisen in due form; the content of the notice and the type of claim must be examined.

The timeline needed in an enforcement file

Objecting to an account termination notice: there are several legal regimes

Why does an objection affect the proof of the claim?

An account termination notice is a document informing the addressee of the claim and the maturity asserted by the bank. Particularly in transactions that fall within İİK Articles 68/b and 150/ı, whether a timely objection was made or not can be decisive for the proof, for enforcement purposes, of the amount stated in the notice and for the ability to contest the items of the claim. However, a failure to object is not in itself an act that makes an invalid agreement valid or creates a debt that never arose.

The first task is to determine whether the document received is a periodic account statement, a notice terminating the account, a payment demand, a request for indemnification of a non-cash credit, or a combination of these.

İİK Article 68/b: objection within one month to a periodic account statement

İİK Article 68/b governs the periodic sending of account statements for current accounts and certain types of credit through a notary. For a debtor who receives an account statement sent in the manner required by law and does not object within one month, special consequences may arise: for instance, that any inaccuracy of the account statement can be brought before the court only after the debt has been paid, and that certain documents acquire the status of documents within the meaning of İİK Article 68/1.

The important point is this: it is wrong to regard this one-month period as a general objection period for every kind of bank notice. The period for sending, the conditions of service and the account period to which the statement relates must each be examined separately.

An objection to the final account termination notice does not automatically reopen earlier periods

Under the scheme of the last paragraph of İİK Article 68/b, the consequences of account statements that were sent earlier and became final without objection under the statutory conditions do not fall away automatically because the account termination notice was objected to later. By contrast, later payments, set-offs, new interest periods and items outside the scope of finality must be examined on their own legal bases.

In a credit file the following distinction in particular must be made: which periodic account statement was sent on which date; which of them was objected to; and which new claims does the final account termination notice contain that differ from the earlier periods?

İİK Article 150/ı: the eight-day notarial objection

İİK Article 150/ı, which concerns judgment-based enforcement through realisation of the mortgage (ipoteğin paraya çevrilmesi yoluyla ilamlı takip), attaches a special consequence to proving that an objection was made through a notary within eight days from service, or from the date the notice is deemed served, against an account statement, payment demand or request for indemnification of a non-cash credit sent by the bank in the manner prescribed by law.

This period does not take the place of the one-month period under İİK Article 68/b; they govern different acts and serve different purposes. In a file where mortgage enforcement based on a judgment is possible, the assumption that only the one-month period exists can lead to a serious loss of rights. Because the statute requires a notary, it should not be assumed that an ordinary e-mail, a WhatsApp message or a branch petition submitted only to the bank can replace the eight-day objection.

What consequence does a timely objection produce?

In its decision of 29.09.2025, File No. E.2025/4332, Decision No. K.2025/5694, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 12. Hukuk Dairesi) stated that the amount of the claim and of interest in account termination notices objected to within the eight-day period had not become final. The decision emphasises that the bank must prove its claim with its other documents and that the expert’s calculation must be capable of being verified.

A timely objection does not mean that the whole credit debt has come to an end or that the bank can no longer start enforcement. The intended result is that, in this special procedure, the legal possibility of resisting the contention that the amount in the notice has become final without objection is preserved.

A separate review of the interest base and of the period claimed

In the same decision of 29.09.2025, the calculation of interest on the total claim rather than on the true principal, and the exceeding of the interest period claimed in the enforcement, were made grounds for quashing. An objection should therefore not be confined to saying that the amount is too high; the principal, the type of interest, the start of interest, the rate, the number of days and the total claim should each be shown separately.

The bank’s right to prove by other documents continues

Where a timely objection is proved within the conditions of İİK Article 150/ı, the question becomes whether the bank can prove its claim by the credit agreement, the drawdown documents, the account movements and the payment and interest records. An objection does not automatically eliminate every claim the bank asserts.

An objection does not by itself stop mortgage enforcement

Objecting to the notice does not in every case prevent the commencement of judgment-based enforcement through realisation of the mortgage. A credit customer who has made a timely notarial objection may still need to use the relevant statutory complaint route separately after the enforcement order has been served.

The decision of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation of 12.10.2022, File No. E.2022/2265, Decision No. K.2022/10194 is an example in which, although a notarial objection had been made, the application was rejected as out of time because the seven-day period for complaint after service of the enforcement order was missed.

Complaint against the enforcement order and the distinction between time limits in the case of defective service

The time-limit regime for a complaint about the amount of the claim and of interest is distinct from the allegation, under İİK Article 150/ı, that there is no valid notification, which is a condition for enforcement. In its decision of 22.04.2026, File No. E.2025/9381, Decision No. K.2026/2739, the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation examined an objection that the condition for enforcement was lacking because of defective service of the account termination notice as a complaint not subject to a time limit, and adopted the view that not only the enforcement order but the enforcement proceeding as a whole must be cancelled.

This approach does not mean that all objections to interest or to the amount of the debt are free of time limits. The true subject of the complaint and its statutory basis determine the time for applying and the result that can be sought.

How should an account termination notice be objected to?

Although the content of an objection varies according to the specific file, the following objections can be made concrete, as appropriate, so that the bank’s account and claim can be reviewed:

1. That the conditions for early maturity had not arisen or that the bank had no power to terminate the account.
2. The addition to the claim of an undrawn credit amount, a duplicate credit record or an erroneous principal.
3. Incomplete calculation of the payments made and the set-offs.
4. Contractual and default interest being run from the wrong period or on the wrong principal.
5. Reliance only on the announced or notified rate instead of the rate actually applied.
6. The absence of a legal basis for compound interest, commission, BSMV (the Banking and Insurance Transactions Tax) and expense items.
7. Problems concerning the suretyship limit, formal requirements, notices specific to the surety and temporal liability.
8. The mortgage limit, the capacity of the third party, and the non-fulfilment of the condition for enforcement.

Instead of listing every possible objection without a specific reason, the decisive objections supported by the records in the file should be raised. The date the notice left the notary, the service and return annotations, the reply sent and the date of service of the enforcement order should be kept together. The bank’s failure to respond does not mean that it has accepted all the grounds of the objection.

The effect on the surety of the account statement and the account termination notice

Notification to the surety is not the same as notification to the principal debtor

The fact that the principal debtor and the surety have signed the same document in a general credit agreement does not mean that a notice given to the principal debtor has been served on the surety. Where, under TBK Article 590/3, the maturity of the principal debt depends on a notice that contains a prior period, that period starts to run for the suretyship debt from the notice given to the surety.

TTK Article 7: default interest without notice to the joint and several surety

TTK Article 7 governs the presumption of joint and several liability in suretyships for commercial debts; but it expressly provides that default interest cannot be charged until the surety has been notified that the undertaking or payment has not been performed. The default date of the principal debtor therefore cannot be mechanically applied to the surety’s own default.

The absence of a notice to the surety does not mean that a valid suretyship debt disappears in every case. Liability for the principal debt and the surety’s own default are different. Depending on the circumstances of the case, service of the payment order may play a role in fixing a later default date for the surety.

The 2021 decision of the Civil General Assembly: an account statement sent to the surety and not objected to

In its decision of 05.10.2021, File No. E.2017/355, Decision No. K.2021/1146, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Hukuk Genel Kurulu, HGK) assessed that, where the account statement was also sent to the surety and the surety did not object, the statement may acquire the status of a document within the scope of İİK Article 68/b. The absolute proposition that “İİK Article 68/b can never be applied to a surety” is therefore not correct.

The other side of the decision matters as well: if the account statement has not been served on the surety, the surety’s defence rights under TBK Article 591 and any allegations concerning the signatures on the underlying documents or the scope of the claim are assessed separately. The specific suretyship relationship and the period of law that applies are decisive.

Where a notice sent to the surety’s address has been returned

In its decision of 03.06.2025, File No. E.2024/5553, Decision No. K.2025/3957, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation found the provision on change of address and notices in the surety’s own suretyship undertaking to be decisive. The Chamber quashed the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal (Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi) because that special contractual provision had not been taken into account. The decision shows not that every returned notice is valid, but that the express address provision specific to the surety and the duty of notification must be investigated in the specific case.

The validity and scope of the suretyship are the first stage of review

TBK Articles 583–584: form and spousal consent

TBK Article 583 provides that a suretyship is to be formed in writing, and that the maximum amount of liability, the date of the suretyship and the intention to be a joint and several surety are to be shown, as the statute requires and as regards the relevant elements, in the surety’s own handwriting. Later changes that increase the surety’s liability are also subject to review of form.

Spousal consent under TBK Article 584 must be assessed; however, the exceptions in the statute, such as company partners, managers and owners of a commercial enterprise, prevent the generalisation that spousal consent is mandatory in every commercial credit suretyship. That other labels are used for certain personal securities given by natural persons under TBK Article 603 does not automatically defeat the protections of form and spousal consent.

TBK Article 586: conditions for proceeding against a joint and several surety

A joint and several suretyship does not mean that the creditor may in every case proceed directly against the surety without any condition. TBK Article 586 sets out conditions such as the principal debtor’s delay in performance and the failure of the demand notice, or the principal debtor’s manifest insolvency. Separate provisions apply to a mortgage on immovable property, to a pledge of movables dependent on delivery and to a pledge of claims. The provision of İİK Article 45 on the enforcement route for secured claims should also be borne in mind.

TBK Articles 589 and 591: maximum liability and defences

Within the framework set out in the statute, a suretyship secures the principal debt and certain accessory consequences. The surety’s maximum amount of liability cannot be treated merely as the credit principal with other items added without limit. In addition, the legal basis of accessory claims arising from the surety’s own default must be shown separately.

TBK Article 591 gives the surety protection by allowing the surety, under certain conditions, to raise against the creditor the defences belonging to the principal debtor. The principal debtor’s waiver of some defences does not in every case remove the surety’s ability to rely on the same defence.

The end of a suretyship, withdrawal and the rights to compel the creditor to act

TBK Article 598: the ten-year period for a natural person’s suretyship

Why it is not sufficient, for suretyships concluded in the period of the former code, simply to count the ten-year period backwards from today is explained separately in the section below on suretyships concluded before 1 July 2012, with reference to Article 5 of Law No. 6101 and the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation of 30.06.2025.

Under TBK Article 598/3, a suretyship given by a natural person ends automatically, within the statutory conditions, when ten years have passed from the conclusion of the contract. The extension of the period or the grant of a new suretyship depends on the form and timing requirements laid down in that article. The fact that a suretyship longer than ten years has been written does not by itself remove the limit.

This period is not the same concept as the limitation period of the claim. Whether the surety is a natural or a legal person, the date on which the contract was concluded, an extension in accordance with the statute and the effect of any steps previously initiated must be examined separately. In suretyships dating from before 01.07.2012 in particular, a result should not be declared on the basis of a simple ten-year calendar calculation without assessing the date of entry into force and the transitional law.

TBK Article 599: withdrawal from a suretyship for a future debt

In a suretyship for a future debt, if before the principal debt has arisen the debtor’s financial situation deteriorates in the manner described in the statute, or it emerges that it was much worse than originally assumed, the surety may withdraw from the suretyship contract by written notice. However, the statutory conditions must be met, the debt must not yet have arisen, and the surety’s obligation to compensate the damage that arises from the creditor’s reliance must be assessed.

This possibility is not a general exit that eliminates all credit debts that have already arisen by a unilateral declaration.

TBK Article 601: compelling the creditor to enforce in a suretyship of indefinite duration

In a suretyship of indefinite duration, once the principal debt has matured, the surety may require the creditor, within one month, to exercise its rights of action or enforcement against the principal debtor, to proceed to realise any pledge and to continue the enforcement without interruption. A simple surety may do so at any time, and a joint and several surety in the cases provided for by the statute. Where the debt matures depending on a notice from the creditor, the one-year starting condition separately regulated by the article is examined.

If the creditor does not comply with a demand made in accordance with the procedure in the statute, the release of the surety from the debt comes into question. The existence of the surety’s demand, its date, its reaching the creditor and the conditions of the article must be proved separately; the mere fact that the bank has not pursued enforcement for a long time does not produce automatic termination in every case.

TBK Article 600 and the end of the principal debt

The ending of a suretyship of fixed term at the end of the statutory period (TBK Article 600) must be assessed separately from the ten-year maximum period of a natural person’s suretyship. If the principal debt has come to an end entirely, the accessory nature of the suretyship under TBK Article 598/1 is also taken into account.

Reduction of the bank’s pledges and security: TBK Article 592

Reduction of security to the surety’s detriment

Under TBK Article 592, if the creditor reduces to the surety’s detriment pledge rights, securities or priority rights that existed at the time of the suretyship or that it later obtained to secure the claim against the principal debtor, the surety’s liability may be reduced accordingly, unless the creditor proves that the loss is smaller. The surety’s right to claim back any overpayment is also reserved.

For this reason, the bank’s release of a mortgage (fek), its discharge of a pledge, its loss of security, or its failure to hand over the documents securing the claim should be examined for their effect on the surety’s liability. Not every change in security means automatic release from the debt; the loss, the legal nature of the security and its security value must be made specific.

Documents needed as proof

The mortgage deed table, the land registry and pledge records, release and deletion (terkin) documents, security valuation reports, release letters, collection and set-off records, and the contracts that affect the surety’s right of recourse should be assessed together. It is important for the surety to show which security the bank reduced, when and how, and for the bank to prove, in the manner the statute provides, that the loss is smaller.

Restructuring and renewal of the debt: suretyship does not end with every protocol

Instalment arrangements and renewal within the meaning of TBK Article 133 are different

A credit debt may be restructured by changing the maturity, setting up a new payment plan, transferring the debt to a new account or updating certain interest terms. However, restructuring a debt does not by itself mean that the old debt has been renewed. For renewal within the meaning of TBK Article 133, the parties’ intention to replace the old debt with a new one and the integrity of the transaction must be examined.

Court of Cassation HGK, 24.06.2026, E.2025/296, K.2026/402

This decision discussed whether a restructuring protocol dated 2016, which the surety had not signed, ended the suretyship under a general credit agreement dated 2011. While the Regional Court of Appeal had held that the surety’s liability ended because the old credit account was closed, the majority of the HGK, assessing together an express provision that the protocol did not amend or renew the earlier agreement and the bank’s records, concluded that there was no renewal within the meaning of TBK Article 133 and quashed the decision in which the lower court had persisted in its earlier ruling.

The concrete limit of the decision is important: not every restructuring continues the suretyship unchanged, and not every new payment plan ends it. The surety’s participation, whether the old debt was actually wound up, any new credit drawdown, the scope of the security and the intention to renew expressed in the contract must be examined. There is also a view in this decision that differs from the majority.

The effect of restructuring on the objection and default dates

If the protocol grants a new maturity or an additional payment period, the old and new stages of maturity and default must not be confused. The effect of the protocol on default, the interest rate, release from the debt and the security provisions must be analysed separately. That an account termination notice is valid for the old debt does not mean that every interest claim made after the restructuring is automatically correct.

Interest calculation: legally different periods must be calculated separately

Contractual interest and the start of default interest

Contractual interest is the interest agreed by contract that arises from the use of the credit. Default interest arises for the debtor concerned when the conditions of default are met. The period between the account termination date and the default of the principal debtor, and the time up to the surety’s own default, must be calculated separately on the basis of statutory and contractual provisions.

Interest must not be claimed twice by cumulating contractual interest and default interest for the same principal and the same period. A default that has arisen in respect of instalments unpaid earlier is taken into account separately.

The 2026 amendment: Article 1 of Law No. 3095

By Article 10 of Law No. 7589, Article 1 of Law No. 3095 was amended in 2026. As of 31.07.2026, statutory interest whose amount has not been fixed by contract is linked to eighty percent of the rediscount rate applied by the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye (TCMB) to short-term credit transactions on 31 December of the previous year. If the rate on 30 June differs by at least five points from the rate at the end of the previous year, eighty percent of the new rate is used for the second half-year.

This provision does not automatically remove valid contractual interest and default interest. The commercial advance interest in Article 2 of Law No. 3095, the foreign-currency debts in Article 4/a, and the temporal application of the interest regime are examined separately.

TTK Article 8: the limit on compound interest

While TTK Article 8/1 provides for freedom as to the interest rate in commercial matters, Article 8/2 accepts the addition of interest to the principal and the running of further interest on it only under limited conditions set out in the statute. Conditions such as a period of at least three months, a current account or a loan that is a commercial transaction for both parties, and the capacity of the parties cannot be ignored. The link with the provisions of Article 3 of Law No. 3095 is assessed.

The addition of accrued interest to the principal does not become lawful automatically merely because the bank’s account system records it in that way.

The rate notified to the TCMB and the rate actually applied

Where the contract ties default interest to the interest rate the bank actually applies to loans of the same type, it is not in every case sufficient to show only the highest rate notified to the TCMB. In its decision of 30.03.2026, File No. E.2025/5089, Decision No. K.2026/1811, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation affirmed a decision of the Regional Court of Appeal in which the distinction between the actual rate and the notified rate was discussed. The affirmation does not mean that all the reasoning of the lower court can be asserted as an independent and general principle of the Court of Cassation.

The bank should present the basis of the rates actually applied, the type of credit, the currency, the period of application, interest changes and the relevant account statements in a form suitable for expert review.

Partial payments, set-off and expenses

Under the payment and set-off provisions beginning with TBK Article 100 and the valid contractual arrangements, the date of each partial payment and the item to which it was set off must be shown. Calculating default interest on the total debt instead of on the principal, or keeping set-off amounts in the base, can increase the claim.

The principal, contractual interest, default interest, BSMV, commission and expenses must be shown separately, and each must have a basis in legislation and in the contract. As regards BSMV, one looks not to a memorised general rate but to the tax-law nature of the transaction concerned, the date and the exemptions.

Suretyship limit, accessory claims and foreign-currency debts

The principle of maximum liability in TBK Article 589 affects, besides the credit principal, certain interest and expenses that fall within the scope of the suretyship. The suretyship limit cannot be treated as a limit on the principal alone with accessory claims added without limit. On the other hand, the nature of the consequences arising from the surety’s own default and their relationship to the limit require separate legal examination.

A Turkish lira credit and a foreign-currency credit may be subject to different interest regimes. Without establishing the conversion rate, enforcement in foreign currency, Article 4/a of Law No. 3095 and the specific terms of the contract, the interest calculation in the example of a TL credit should not be applied unchanged to a foreign-currency credit.

Mortgage enforcement and the third-party owner: distinguishing personal debt

The condition for enforcement under İİK Article 150/ı

Under the credit and mortgage conditions set out in the statute, the bank can start judgment-based enforcement through realisation of the mortgage by presenting certain documents, even if the mortgage deed table does not contain an unconditional acknowledgement of a monetary debt. However, the conditions for enforcement relating to the sending of a valid account statement or payment demand must be satisfied. The decision of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation of 22.04.2026 specifically emphasised that, in the case of defective service, the enforcement is cancelled.

The third-party owner of the mortgage and TMK Article 887

A person who grants a mortgage over his or her immovable property for another’s credit debt does not become personally a credit debtor or a surety merely by creating the mortgage. TMK Article 887 separately regulates the payment demand that must be addressed to a third-party owner who is not personally liable. The decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation of 25.10.2023, File No. E.2022/75, Decision No. K.2023/1011 set out the separation of the maturity of the in rem claim over the mortgage from personal liability for the debt.

Under İİK Article 150/ı, the objection regime applicable to the credit customer and the rights specific to the third-party owner are not the same. For a person who is both the mortgage owner and a surety, the rights and obligations arising from the two separate capacities must be examined together.

Non-cash credits: a deposit claim differs from a cash recourse claim

The fact that the risk on a letter of guarantee or a cheque leaf continues does not mean that the bank has automatically paid that amount in cash. A deposit claim in respect of a letter of guarantee that the bank has not yet indemnified must be distinguished from the cash recourse claim that may arise after indemnification.

In its decision of 25.10.2022, File No. E.2020/697, Decision No. K.2022/1386, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation affirmed the decision rejecting the deposit claim against the sureties because, despite the wording extending the suretyship to cash and non-cash debts under the general credit agreement, the specific suretyship document did not contain a separate and sufficient deposit obligation.

In its decision of 18.02.2026, File No. E.2025/61, Decision No. K.2026/92, it assessed whether a company credit card product linked to a general credit agreement of 2008 fell within the scope of the suretyship, and, because of the connection between the agreements, the majority regarded it as within the scope. That the agreement was concluded in the period of the former code and the characteristics of the credit product prevent this result from being generalised unconditionally to all current suretyships.

Example calculation: a different default date creates a difference in interest

The following representative scenario is intended only to explain the method of calculation; it does not replace the actual rates in a credit agreement or the result of a statutory calculation. It assumes that the maturity and the notices are valid, that the suretyship limit is sufficient, that there is no partial payment and no capitalisation of interest, that the agreement adopts day-count as actual days/365, and that BSMV and other expenses are left out.

For the principal debtor

8 days of contractual interest from 2 to 9 October: 3,200,000 × 0.24 × 8 / 365 = TL 16,832.88.

22 days of default interest from 10 to 31 October: 3,200,000 × 0.36 × 22 / 365 = TL 69,435.62.

Total: TL 86,268.50.

For the surety

13 days of contractual interest from 2 to 14 October: 3,200,000 × 0.24 × 13 / 365 = TL 27,353.42.

17 days of default interest from 15 to 31 October: 3,200,000 × 0.36 × 17 / 365 = TL 53,654.79.

Total: TL 81,008.21.

The legal result and the prohibition on double collection

In the example, the five-day difference in the start of default produces a difference of TL 5,260.29 in interest for the period. This does not mean, however, that the bank could collect the same claim twice, from both the principal debtor and the surety. Duplication in collection must be prevented, and performance made by one debtor must be reflected in the liability of the other. The period in which the representative contractual interest is applicable is examined separately under the specific agreement.

Separate file review for the bank’s counsel and for counsel for the debtor and surety

The bank’s counsel: structuring the claim so that it can be proved

The bank’s counsel should place the credit types and the account periods on a separate inventory, and should check in advance the power to terminate the account, the credit actually drawn down, the service of notices on the correct addressee, the validity of the suretyship and the risks of its ending. Enforcement should not be planned before the sending of the account statement under İİK Article 68/b and the notarial and enforcement conditions under Article 150/ı have been verified.

If a restructuring is carried out, the effect of the protocol on the old debt, on the security, on the scope of the suretyship and on interest and payment dates should be written out clearly. When a decision is taken to release pledges, the surety’s rights under TBK Article 592 should also be considered.

Counsel for the debtor and the surety: keeping time-limit, debt and security defences apart

Counsel for the debtor or the surety should review the account statements and the account termination notice separately; should determine from the documents which of the one-month, eight-day and seven-day regimes apply; and should not use a reply to the notice and a post-enforcement complaint as substitutes for one another.

As regards the suretyship, the following should be examined to the extent appropriate: form and consent under TBK Articles 583–584, proceeding against the surety under Article 586, the limit under Article 589, maturity under Article 590, defences under Article 591, preservation of security under Article 592, termination under Article 598, withdrawal under Article 599 and the right to compel enforcement under Article 601. Defences that are incompatible with one another or irrelevant to the case should not be listed mechanically.

The chain of calculation sought in an expert examination

It is not enough for an expert report merely to reach a “total debt” figure; every figure must be capable of being reproduced from the agreement, the bank’s records and the interest period.

Can an action for negative declaratory judgment and an action for recovery of payment be brought if the notice was not objected to? — İİK Article 72

A failure to object to the account termination notice or to the enforcement within the statutory period does not mean that all judicial remedies are automatically lost for a person against whom enforcement is pursued although that person is not a debtor. However, the special finality and evidentiary consequences under İİK Article 68/b do not fall away automatically merely because a new action has been brought. The first things to determine are therefore which document is deemed final for which period, and whether the dispute really concerns the existence of the debt or the refund of money collected.

What problem does an action for negative declaratory judgment solve?

Under İİK Article 72, a debtor may ask the court to declare, before or during enforcement, that he or she is not a debtor. In a dispute arising from a general credit agreement, this action may rest on legal grounds such as that the claim never arose, that it was paid, or that there is no suretyship liability or that it has ended. However, merely stating that one does not accept the account termination notice does not mean that the conditions for the action are met; legal interest, the nature of the disputed debt and earlier effects of finality must be examined separately.

An action for negative declaratory judgment is not a direct alternative to an objection to the payment order or to the notarial objection under İİK Article 150/ı. If the period for the relevant special application is still running, the mere filing of an action for negative declaratory judgment does not preserve that period. The special limitation under İİK Article 68/b, by which, where an account statement was not previously objected to, its inaccuracy can be put in issue only after payment, must also be assessed separately.

Why is an interim injunction before and after the start of enforcement different?

İİK Article 72 provides different interim-injunction possibilities according to when the action for negative declaratory judgment is brought. In both cases the requirement of security of not less than fifteen percent of the claim is important; the specific legal position and the court’s assessment are also decisive.

An action for negative declaratory judgment brought before enforcement begins

In an action for negative declaratory judgment brought before enforcement, an interim injunction staying the enforcement may be granted on request against the security required by the statute. But the filing of the action does not in itself produce such an injunction. It cannot be said that the bank’s right to enforce is suspended automatically without a court order.

An action for negative declaratory judgment brought after enforcement has begun

In an action brought after enforcement has begun, the enforcement cannot be stayed by an interim injunction. The debtor may, however, by providing security to cover any loss that delay may cause and by meeting the statutory security requirements, request an injunction that the money held at the enforcement office’s cashier should not be paid to the creditor.

This distinction is critical in practice: the expectation that all attachment and sale steps will stop automatically because an action was brought after enforcement can cause a serious loss of rights. The scope in which the injunction is granted, and which steps may continue in the enforcement file, must also be read from the specific order.

The function and time limit of the action for recovery of payment if the debt has been paid

Under İİK Article 72, a debtor who, because he or she did not object to the enforcement or the objection was lifted, has been obliged to pay in full an amount that he or she did not owe may, under the statutory conditions, bring an action for recovery of payment within one year from the date of payment. This period and the relevant regime of recovery should not be generalised as the single, unchanging limitation period for all other claims of wrongful collection or unjust enrichment.

The statutory provision under which, if the debt is paid while an action for negative declaratory judgment is pending, the action can continue as an action for recovery of payment may also apply. The legal nature of situations such as voluntary payment made directly to the bank, payment made under the threat of enforcement and completed collection in the enforcement file should be distinguished.

The boundary between an account statement not objected to and an action for negative declaratory judgment

A periodic account statement that has a special finality effect should not be relied upon as a categorical claim that it cannot be the subject of any judicial review. On the other hand, the statutory limitation expressly imposed by İİK Article 68/b must also not be ignored. It cannot be said that finality can easily be overcome by bringing an action without determining the period at issue, the validity of the service, the conditions of finality, later payments and new interest items.

Practical conclusion: An objection to the account termination notice within time, an objection to the enforcement file, a complaint to the enforcement court and an action for negative declaratory judgment or recovery of payment are different instruments. Which instrument to use must be determined by the timing of the act, the legal interest, and the documentary and evidentiary conditions.

Mediation as a condition precedent to litigation in commercial credit disputes — TTK Article 5/A

In which commercial cases must mediation be tried?

Under TTK Article 5/A, in actions that are commercial cases under TTK Article 4 or other statutes and that concern a sum of money: claims, compensation, actions to annul an objection, and actions for negative declaratory judgment and for recovery of payment, applying to a mediator before bringing the action is, as a rule, a condition for the action. The express addition of negative declaratory judgment and recovery of payment to the provision was made by Law No. 7445, and the amendment entered into force on 1 September 2023. The date on which the action is brought and the transitional law must be taken into account.

In a dispute over a debt, a suretyship or a collection under a commercial general credit agreement, it must therefore first be established whether the action to be brought is truly a commercial case and whether the claim falls within this article. That one of the parties is a surety who is a natural person is not in itself sufficient for a firm conclusion that all disputes will be under the same regime of jurisdiction and condition for the action.

Mediation does not replace a notarial objection or a complaint to the enforcement court

An application to mediation is not deemed to complete, of itself, the eight-day notarial objection under İİK Article 150/ı, the account-statement objection under İİK Article 68/b or the special time limits for complaint against the enforcement order. Pre-action mediation in commercial cases must be distinguished from the objection and complaint mechanisms specific to enforcement law.

In particular, after enforcement has begun, letting the period for a notarial objection or an application to the enforcement court run out merely by waiting for mediation talks may prevent the exercise of statutory rights. The act subject to the relevant time limit must be carried out separately and on time.

The relationship between the mediation final record and the claim in the action

In the mediation process, the parties to the dispute, the scope of the claim and the subject of the dispute shown in the final record may matter in the later action. Because an action to annul an objection, an action for negative declaratory judgment and an action for recovery of payment serve different legal purposes, conformity between the dispute taken to mediation and the claim in the action must be established. Conducting mediation does not, by itself, amount to acceptance of the claim demanded by the bank or to an increase of the suretyship limit.

Does an account termination notice interrupt the limitation period? — TBK Articles 146, 149 and 154–157

The start of the limitation period depends on the maturity of the claim

Under TBK Article 146, unless the statute provides otherwise, claims are subject to the general limitation period of ten years. It should not be forgotten, however, that different periods may apply according to the type of credit relationship, the source of the claim and special statutes. The date of the notice, the date of maturity, the date of default and the start of the limitation period are not automatically the same day.

Under TBK Article 149, the limitation period as a rule starts to run when the claim matures. Where the maturity of the claim depends on a notice, the day on which the notice could have been given may matter for the start. A bank that terminates the account after waiting for years therefore cannot, in every case, postpone the start of limitation indefinitely at its own will.

The contractual structure of the credit, the date on which the power of early maturity became exercisable, the independent maturities of any instalments and the periods for special interest claims must be assessed separately.

The bank’s unilateral account termination notice does not by itself interrupt limitation

TBK Article 154 lists the grounds that interrupt limitation. They include the creditor’s application to a court or arbitrator by action or defence, enforcement proceedings, an application to the bankruptcy estate and the debtor’s acknowledgement of the debt.

By contrast, the bank’s merely sending an account termination notice is not, on its own, one of the grounds for interruption listed in TBK Article 154. Where, in response to the notice, the debtor accepts the debt, makes a partial payment or engages in another act of acknowledgement mentioned in the statute, the interrupting effect of that separate event may be assessed separately.

Two chronologies should therefore be built in the file: (i) the dates of maturity and default; (ii) the start of limitation and the dates of any grounds of interruption.

The effect of limitation on the principal debtor and on the surety does not run in the same direction

Under TBK Article 155, when limitation is interrupted against the principal debtor it is also interrupted against the surety; by contrast, interruption of limitation against the surety does not have the effect of interrupting it against the principal debtor. The types of relationship that the statute distinguishes between the principal debtor, the surety and other joint and several debtors must be taken into account in the specific case.

TBK Articles 156 and 157 regulate the starting of a new period after interruption and the effect of pending actions and of steps in enforcement. One should therefore look not only at the date of the first enforcement but also at later procedural steps that continue the enforcement and may affect limitation.

Critical distinction: The interruption of the general limitation period of the claim and the ten-year statutory period for the ending of a natural person’s suretyship under TBK Article 598 are not the same institution. An act that interrupts limitation does not automatically remove the particular regime for the ending of the suretyship.

A private bank’s claim and a TMSF claim must not be confused

Article 141 of the Banking Law No. 5411 provides a special twenty-year limitation period for Fund claims arising from the Law. It cannot be accepted that this special period applies automatically to every commercial credit merely because the claim is asserted by a bank or later becomes the subject of an assignment. The capacity of the creditor, the legal source of the claim and the special scope of the Law must be determined.

How does the ten-year ending period apply to suretyships concluded before 1 July 2012?

The ten-year period in TBK Article 598 is not a limitation period but an ending period specific to suretyship

Under TBK Article 598/3, every suretyship given by a natural person, without prejudice to the possibilities of extension and renewal under the statute, ends automatically when ten years have passed from the conclusion of the contract. This result should not be equated with the general limitation of the principal credit claim or with the date of the surety’s own default.

The date on which the suretyship was concluded, whether the surety is a natural or a legal person, the validity of the suretyship, whether the intention to extend complies with the required form and whether a new suretyship was created must be determined from the specific document.

Transitional law: why Article 5 of Law No. 6101 matters

The Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 entered into force on 1 July 2012. For suretyships created before then, the ten-year rule in TBK Article 598 cannot be assessed mechanically by simply writing today’s date on the contract.

Article 5/1 of Law No. 6101 introduces transitional rules for preclusive periods and limitation periods that began before entry into force. The second paragraph of the article grants, within the statutory conditions, an additional period of one year from entry into force where a preclusive period or special limitation period provided for for the first time by the new Law had already expired as of its start date.

When examining whether liability under a pre-2012 suretyship has ended, therefore, the date of creation, the transitional provisions of Law No. 6101 and the case law applicable to the specific dispute must be assessed together. It cannot be said that in every old contract the ten-year period automatically restarted on 1 July 2012, or that it automatically cannot apply.

Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, 30.06.2025, E.2024/6853, K.2025/4666

In the dispute underlying this decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, a general credit relationship had been the subject of an account termination in 1998; the claim was later assigned and enforcement against the sureties was started in 2018. The defendants argued that the suretyship debt had ended and that the claim was time-barred.

The court of first instance, assessing the ten-year ending regime for a natural person’s suretyship under TBK Article 598/3 and the transitional provisions of Article 5/2 of Law No. 6101, held that under the specific circumstances the liability under the suretyship had ended and dismissed the action. The decision of the Regional Court of Appeal upholding the dismissal was affirmed by the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation on 30.06.2025.

Practical significance of the decision: In old credit relationships of more than twenty years, the existence of the bank’s claim, the old date of the agreement, the assignment of the claim and the ending period of the suretyship must be investigated separately. The Chamber’s affirmation should not be extended to the proposition that every old suretyship is automatically invalid or that Article 141 of Law No. 5411 applies to all bank claims.

The three-way distinction between limitation, the ten-year suretyship period and default

Examination of these three matters may lead to different legal outcomes in one file: for instance, that the principal claim exists, that the suretyship has ended and that the surety was not in default in a past period. Counsel for the bank and for the surety should therefore conduct the claim–suretyship–default review on the same timeline, but under separate legal headings.

Comparative practical value of the case law

Conclusion: objection to the notice, default and the ending of suretyship must be assessed separately in the same file

An account termination notice under a general credit agreement is not merely a letter conveying the bank’s demand; in some cases it has serious consequences for the maturity of the claim, the date of default, evidentiary force and the conditions for mortgage enforcement. The period for applying against an account termination notice must be determined according to the document and the enforcement route to be followed: the one-month account-statement regime under İİK Article 68/b, the eight-day notarial objection under Article 150/ı and a judicial complaint against the enforcement order are different.

For a joint and several surety, form and maximum liability, notice under TTK Article 7, separate maturity under TBK Article 590, the ten-year period under Article 598, the preservation of security under Article 592, withdrawal under Article 599 and the means of compelling the creditor to enforce under Article 601 each produce separate legal consequences. The decision of the Civil General Assembly in 2026 shows that restructuring a credit debt does not in every case end the suretyship either.

The actions for negative declaratory judgment and recovery of payment that may be brought after a failure to object to an account termination notice within time must be assessed together with the relevant special finality effects and with the distinction in İİK Article 72 between injunctions before and after enforcement. In disputes over commercial claims and over the absence of debt, mediation as a condition precedent to litigation under TTK Article 5/A must be checked separately. On limitation, the bank’s unilateral notice must be distinguished from the grounds of interruption listed in TBK Article 154, and both from the ten-year ending period of a natural person’s suretyship.

For the legally sound collection of a bank’s claim and for an effective defence, it must be established from specific documents who is liable, for which debt item, in what legal capacity, from what date and up to what amount. This review must be carried out by looking not only at the total debt but together at the account statements, the notice, the service, the interest base, the duration of the suretyship and the fate of the security.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the period for objecting to an account termination notice one month or eight days?

It depends on the document and the enforcement regime. For periodic account statements under İİK Article 68/b there is a one-month objection; for certain steps in judgment-based enforcement through realisation of the mortgage under Article 150/ı there is an eight-day objection through a notary. The two provisions may apply to different acts in the same file.

If I do not object to the account termination notice, am I deemed to have accepted the debt?

If the relevant statutory conditions are met, the account statement or the amount of the claim in the notice may have special evidentiary and finality effects for enforcement purposes. This does not mean that a debt that never arose is created, or that all interest accruing afterwards is beyond review.

Does an objection through a notary stop mortgage enforcement?

No, not in every case. A timely objection may prevent the claim from becoming final under the special procedure; when the enforcement order is served, the necessary judicial complaint and other applications must be made separately.

What happens if I miss the seven-day period against the enforcement order?

A loss of rights may arise in respect of complaints subject to a time limit concerning the amount of the claim and interest. By contrast, for problems with the condition for enforcement, such as the absence of valid service of the account termination notice under İİK Article 150/ı, the approach of the Court of Cassation’s 2026 case law that the complaint is not subject to a time limit must be assessed separately.

If no notice was ever sent to the surety, is the surety wholly released from the debt?

Not in every case. However, a claim for default interest before enforcement may be problematic unless the surety’s own default and the notice conditions in TTK Article 7 have been completed. The validity of the suretyship and liability for the principal debt are different matters.

Does a natural person’s suretyship end after ten years?

TBK Article 598 provides for an ending after ten years under the statutory conditions. However, the date the suretyship was created, any appropriate extension or new suretyship, the type of contract and, in particular, the transitional law for pre-2012 relationships must be examined.

If the bank releases the mortgage, is the surety’s debt reduced?

Under TBK Article 592, if security is reduced to the surety’s detriment, the surety’s liability may be reduced, subject to the proof and scope conditions in the statute. Not every release of a mortgage automatically removes the whole suretyship debt.

If the credit is restructured, does the old suretyship end?

It does not end automatically. Whether the debt was renewed within the meaning of TBK Article 133, the wording of the protocol, the surety’s participation and whether the old account was actually wound up are examined. The HGK decision of 24.06.2026 explains this distinction.

Can the surety withdraw from future credit drawdowns?

TBK Article 599 allows withdrawal by written notice if, before the debt has arisen, the statutory conditions concerning the debtor’s financial situation are met. It is not a right to end unilaterally all debts that have already arisen.

If the bank does not pursue enforcement for a long time, can the surety compel the creditor to enforce?

TBK Article 601 allows the surety, in a suretyship of indefinite duration and under the conditions provided for in the statute, to require the creditor to exercise its rights of enforcement or action within one month. The legal conditions of the demand must be met and its reaching the creditor must be proved.

Is the highest interest rate notified by the bank sufficient on its own?

Where the contract contains a formula based on the interest rate actually applied, the TCMB notification alone may not be sufficient. Which rate the bank applied to which credit on which date must be examined from the records.

Is a third party who has granted a mortgage regarded as a surety?

The person does not become a personal debtor or a surety merely because he or she created a mortgage over his or her immovable property. The special notice under TMK Article 887 and any separate suretyship relationship must be examined.

If I miss the period for objecting to the account termination notice, can I bring an action for negative declaratory judgment?

If the conditions are met, an action for negative declaratory judgment under İİK Article 72 may come into question. But the special finality and evidentiary effects of İİK Article 68/b do not fall away automatically; the legal interest, the period at issue in the dispute and the correct route for the action must be examined.

Does an action for negative declaratory judgment stop enforcement?

Bringing the action does not in itself stop enforcement. In an action brought before enforcement, an injunction staying enforcement may be sought under the statutory security conditions; in an action brought after enforcement, what comes into question, if the conditions are met, is not a stay but an injunction that the money at the enforcement office’s cashier is not to be paid out.

If I paid money to the enforcement file that I did not owe, how long do I have to claim it back?

Under the recovery regime of İİK Article 72, a person who was obliged to pay in full an amount he or she did not owe, because of failing to object or because the objection was lifted, may under the statutory conditions bring an action within one year from the date of payment. The legal nature of the payment and other grounds of action must be assessed separately.

Is mediation mandatory before an action for negative declaratory judgment concerning a commercial credit?

In commercial actions for negative declaratory judgment, recovery of payment and annulment of an objection that fall within TTK Article 5/A and concern a sum of money, mediation as a condition precedent to litigation is provided for. This process does not replace an objection to the notarial notice or a complaint to the enforcement court.

Does the bank’s sending of an account termination notice interrupt the limitation period?

Not on its own. Under TBK Article 154, the grounds listed in the statute, such as an action or enforcement and the debtor’s acknowledgement of the debt, are assessed. The bank’s unilateral notice and the creditor’s starting of enforcement are different events.

Does the ten-year period of an old suretyship restart in 2012?

Not in every case. TBK Article 598, the transitional rules of Article 5 of Law No. 6101 and the date of the specific suretyship must be assessed together. The decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation of 30.06.2025 is important for this distinction.

Sources and legal bases

1. Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu) No. 6098; in particular Articles 100–102, 117, 133, 146, 149, 154–157, 581–603. mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
2. Turkish Commercial Code (Türk Ticaret Kanunu) No. 6102; in particular Articles 4, 5/A, 7–10, 18/3. mevzuat.gov.tr
3. Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İcra ve İflas Kanunu) No. 2004; in particular Articles 16, 45, 62, 67, 68, 68/b, 72, 149/a and 150/ı. mevzuat.gov.tr
4. Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu) No. 4721; in particular Articles 884 and 887. mevzuat.gov.tr
5. Law No. 3095 on Statutory Interest and Default Interest (Kanuni Faiz ve Temerrüt Faizine İlişkin Kanun) (Article 1 as amended by Article 10 of Law No. 7589). mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
6. Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun), Article 28. mevzuat.gov.tr
7. Law No. 6101 on the Entry into Force and Manner of Application of the Turkish Code of Obligations, in particular Article 5. mevzuat.wiki
8. Banking Law (Bankacılık Kanunu) No. 5411, in particular Article 141 (special regime for Fund claims). mevzuat.gov.tr
9. Law No. 7445, Article 31; the amendment of TTK Article 5/A and its entry into force on 01.09.2023. mevzuat.gov.tr
10. Court of Cassation HGK, 05.10.2021, E.2017/355, K.2021/1146. app.dejure.ai
11. Court of Cassation HGK, 25.10.2022, E.2020/697, K.2022/1386. app.dejure.ai
12. Court of Cassation 12th Civil Chamber, 12.10.2022, E.2022/2265, K.2022/10194. app.dejure.ai
13. Court of Cassation HGK, 25.10.2023, E.2022/75, K.2023/1011. app.dejure.ai
14. Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, 03.06.2025, E.2024/5553, K.2025/3957. app.dejure.ai
15. Court of Cassation 12th Civil Chamber, 29.09.2025, E.2025/4332, K.2025/5694. app.dejure.ai
16. Court of Cassation HGK, 18.02.2026, E.2025/61, K.2026/92. app.dejure.ai
17. Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, 30.03.2026, E.2025/5089, K.2026/1811. app.dejure.ai
18. Court of Cassation 12th Civil Chamber, 22.04.2026, E.2025/9381, K.2026/2739. app.dejure.ai
19. Court of Cassation HGK, 24.06.2026, E.2025/296, K.2026/402. app.dejure.ai
20. Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, 30.06.2025, E.2024/6853, K.2025/4666. app.dejure.ai